see: www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3344#comment-26298
 
*  Again, which part of the word "Yes" are we  not supposed to understand?
 
 
*  You certainly appear to have unresolved  'issues' with  pale-faced Europeans.
 
 
Explanation, please.

You may ask that question for yourself, please. And I do not approve violent action, i.e. 'jihad', nor do I sympathize in any way with warfare or missionaries, cruzadores.

"Is there any people on this planet which could  be labeled 'non-racist'?"
 
First it was kappert the pacifist turned jihadi sympathizer. Is he now admitting that he is a racist as well?

Very true, indeed. Is there any people on this planet which could be labeled 'non-racist'?

Title: Interesting Assumptions
 
http://asianracism.blogspot.com/2008/03/interesting-assumptions.html
 
 
 

"Merits of occupation is odd for itself, don't you think".
 
Please, do try to keep up with your own arguments here. Are you or are you not the same kappert who said that he believed the brutal conquest of Spain by the Arabs brought net benefits to the people of the Iberian peninsula?
 
see: node/3344#comment-26295
 
 

Asian Racism: Cold Truths Are Beginning to Surface
http://www.iht.com/articles/1992/04/15/eddi.php
 
 
http://card.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/racist-article-in-asianweek-why-i-hate-blacks/
 
You want more ?
 

The Ottoman occupation of Arab lands was, indeed, a sad time for Arabs. And to add insult to injury both the Osman turks and the Arabs were fellow Muslims.

'Merits of occupation' is odd for itself, don't you think. As any imperium, the Ottoman Empire had a centralised oligarchy, slave trade, capital punishment, ... Wars against Russia, Venice, Austria, revolts of Egypt and Mesopotamia made it clear that the 'eternal state' would come to an end. What British and French did was nothing but splitting up the cake, plus a glacé called petroleum. Sad times for Arabs.

Could you specify the time period you want to know more about.

... I admit, I'm confused. What's the common ground of these persons? Colonialists, missionaries, anthropologists, ... You should add some Italian, Portuguese or Spanish people, too, or is it strictly protestant?

Then YOU guessed wrong.
 
btw: What about those Ottomans?

Here's a clue: Not a Wing, Wong, Singh, Tsong, Abdullah or Crazy Cloud in among 'em. Doesn't THAT tell you SOMETHING?

I can only guess: that Wing, Wong, Singh, Tsong, Abdullah or Crazy Cloud weren't racists.

@ kappert
 
Excerpted from a review of the book:
 
Stephen Jay Gould...
 
Friedrich Tiedemann, the ninteenth century German doctor...
 
Granville Sharpe ( London civil servant)
 
Langfield War
 
Mary Kingsley
 
Olive Schreiner...
 
Thomas Winterbottom...
 
George Cable...
 
 
Do you notice something interesting about all those names?
 
Here's a clue: Not a Wing, Wong, Singh, Tsong, Abdullah or Crazy Cloud in among 'em. Doesn't THAT tell you SOMETHING?
 
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/used/product.asp?EAN=2692012715478&Itm=9
 

The Ottomans, Kappert, the Ottomans?

Yet there is a difference between 'nazism' and 'totalitarian ideologies', and I think that nazism is primarily an European heritage. Exactly, "empirical observations" lead Cuvier to his thesis of racism. See: Sven Lindqvist: The Skull Measurer's Mistake: And other Portraits of Men and Women Who Spoke Out Against Racism.

Aw!!! ...
 
 Let's see how things look after kappert has finally  got(ten) around to responding  to my  question  about the relative merits of western vs Ottoman occupation, domination and exploitation of the Middle East, shall we? Just like me, you know you want to, and it's sure to be entertaining. 
 
;-)) 

@ Atlanticist

You are wasting your time.  You are dealing with a 'fundamentalist' in Kappert, i.e. with someone who holds his beliefs with certainty.  That is another way of saying that he is not interested in making empirical observations, or understanding alternative 'explanations'. 

Kappert is the poster boy of western perverse self-hatred.  He does not want to see the reality TODAY of Tibet-in-China, Zimbabwe, Congo, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc... Whatever that is going on in these places, it must be the fault of "European culture" in his brainwashed mind.   As a naive-left teacher, he wouldn't last a week in any of these places.

European culture as "the basis" for nazism? Absurd. Nazism WAS the explicit rejection of "European culture" by certain Europeans.  And various forms of 'nazism' (i.e. totalitarian ideologies) exist TODAY in various non-European or non-Western cultures, and will always exist among mankind.  That is the lesson of history.  And perverse self-hatred, surely, can only lead to self-destruction.   
 

I will try to explain that European culture stands at the basis for what we know as Nazism.
Nazism's uniqueness lay in its combination of various forms of Western violence, or more specifically, its regimes of discipline and punishment; its imperialism; industrialized death and total war; its scientifically grounded racism; and finally its anti-Semitism. The Shoah was a logical outcome of Western pathologies. French and Industrial Revolutions, the guillotine, the prison, and the factory, including the slaughterhouse, the guillotine serialized killing, transformed the executioner into a bureaucratic employee relieved of ethical responsibility. Although factories, unlike prisons, employed free workers, they too adopted disciplinary and hierarchical practices, serializing and segmenting production, while alienating and dehumanizing workers. The slaughterhouse, the methodical, mass-produced death factory for animals, became a cultural reference point for the systematic destruction of human beings. Taken together, key institutions introduced modes of violence that featured moral indifference, bureaucratic efficiency, and the militarized mobilization of labour. Industrialization encouraged the spread of European settlers throughout the globe and especially the conquest of Africa. The extinction of inferior races, as much the result of administrative rationality as spontaneity, received its justification in the view that the natives would soon depart the earth as a matter of course, unable to adapt to a superior civilization and undeserving of normative ethical considerations. The belief that expansion would alleviate overpopulation, a crucial element in empire building, was not at all unique to Nazism. Moreover, imperialism introduced another factor to the Western exercise of power, conquest, ethnic cleansing, and extermination as the route to regeneration. Finally, anonymous death of WWI derived from industrial and disciplinary techniques already in place and from imperialist practices: total war, that is, the elimination of the distinction between combatant and civilian, the racialised demonization of the enemy, concentration camps, and genocide. Using Hannah Arendt's distinction between origins as opposed to causes, as well as Michel Foucault's geneology, the death camps of the Third Reich embraced the worst aspects of factories, slaughterhouses and prisons, combining purposeless and humiliating work, assembly-line murder, and the disappearance of morality. Nazi Lebensraum took inspiration from British imperialism and the brutality of white settlers against Native Americans. Unlike previous colonial racism, the Nazi regime did not see the Jew as too primitive to avoid extinction, but rather as the enemy of civilization that it had to actively eradicate with every available technological, bureaucratic, and military means.
Due to my poor English, I resumed: Enzo Traverso (2003): The Origins of Nazi Violence.

@ kappert
 
Please pay particular attention to the final paragraph.
 
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson070608.html
 
 

@ kappert
 
Will any of those books you recommend explain to me why and how the West's occupation, domination and exploitation of the Middle East was/is any worse than the Ottoman turks occupation, domination and exploitation of the same region? No, I thought not. In which case, why do you choose to pour scorn on the former while giving a free pass to the latter? In other words, what is your personal agenda here? Explanation, please.

Assuming that crackpot website you posted is accurate, where do you expect to be living and teaching in, say, 2011? I'll bet a pound to a penny you'll still be residing in the West.

@ kappert

Kindly provide a short synopsis of Creasy's book  explaining why, in his and your opinion, Europeans feel so superior, and what all this has to do with Hitler's Germany. You're a teacher, right? So teach. You have this talib's  undivided attention.

The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, written by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy (1851) gives you an indication why Europeans are feeling so superior. The nazi madness was the cumulus of a fantasy deeply rooted in Europeans. And it's not over yet.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Check it out:

Abdullah, Thabit (2003): A Brief History of Iraq. Pearson/Longman. London.
Catherwood, Christopher (2004): Churchill's Folly – How Winston Churchill created Modern Iraq. Constable. London.
Dodge, Tony (2003): Inventing Iraq. Hurst. London.
Fromkin, David (1989): A Peace to End all Peace. Holt. New York, NY.
Karsh, Efraim / Karsh, Inari (1999): Empires of the Sand. Harvard U Press. Cambridge, MA.
Kedourie, Elie (1970): The Chatham House Version and Other Middle-Eastern Studies. Weidenfled. London.
MacMillan, Margaret (2001): Peacemakers (Paris 1919). Murray. London.
Tarbush, Mohammed (1982) The Role of the Military in Politics: A Case Study of Iraq to 1941. KPI. London.

"Allied presence in post-war Germany failed to analyse the nazi doctrines blah, blah, blah".
 
Without a war in the first place there would have been no "Allied presence in post-war Germany" to complain about.
 
Q: Was the war against nazi Germany justified, or should we have allowed the nazis to remain in power to provide a final solution to the problem of left-wing idiots like you?
 
."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27099
 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27329
 
 

"The creation of the modern Middle East was configured by British colonialists, (ab) using Hashemite and Sherif clans. Only Ibn Saud got what he wanted".
 
Aw diddums!
 
(Based upon human rights record of the Saudi royals, all I can say is, Thank Allah it was restricted to Ibn Saud getting "what he wanted". Imagine how much worse the Middle East would be had the rest of those rattle-sheikhs and high roller wannabees got their way).
 
(Perhaps if the Ottomans had been wiser, more liberal and far-sighted, the British colonialists wouldn't have inherited such a sorry mess).
 
Does kappert believe that we British are a better class of colonialist than the Ottoman Turks?

Your answer, please, kappert.
 
 

Due to the results of practiced justice, I doubt that direct election of judges/sheriffs is an adequate way to ensure the application of law. It's more a Wild West tradition, tending to be conservative.
The creation of the modern Middle East was configured by British colonialists, (ab)using Hashemite and Sherif clans. Only Ibn Saud got what he wanted.
Allied presence in post-war Germany failed to analyse the nazi doctrines - most low-grade nazis continued unharmed in public offices.
Exploitation is the abuse of people/animals for egoistic purposes.
Yet glad, you somehow care for Alaska ...
Biofuels - please, inform yourself.

You really don't understand his genius do you: he learns his students how to think!!!
I must admit that after trying to understand the written caprioles of kappert, understanding higher mathematics becomes peanuts.
He just throws in a few chosen clichés and off he goes on another tangent.
I think he has a book of clichés and throws darts at which one he is going to use now.
Enough said he drives me bonkers.

@ Traveller

I was right, the subject has shifted to many others on a 'list'.

-- It seems that Kappert is not aware that it is the voters of Dallas County who put the County Board (makes the 'rules') in place at regular intervals.  Moreover, in Texas most county sheriffs (police Executive) and also most judges are up for election and/or re-election at regular intervals. If ordinary Germans could be only so lucky as to elect judges and sheriffs....(but we already know, over there they do not trust 'common people'), understandably so after reading Kappert.  It is true that the authorities of Dallas County all have to operate within a legal framework that is (in a similar way) determined by all the voters in the State of Texas (not just in Dallas County).  Kappert still thinks that he knows better than those people how to handle crime in their community.   

-- Do you know what the relevance is of 1926 Middle East "designs" by the British for Pvdh's "four goals"?  Is Kappert aware that it was also the British who largely 'designed' Belgium?  Does that mean that Belgians are not responsible for Belgian behavior patterns today?  One wonders... He probably thinks that Germans are not responsible for their behavior either, and that the American presence there since 1945 is all part of a 'design for exploitation'.

--  What a tremendous insight! There are "some" who do not like money spend on "warfare".  Gee, I did not know that.

--  The word "exploitation" still remains undefined.  Do you know, Traveller, why that is?  The reason is that any attempt to define it clearly in this context would expose that there is nothing 'there'.  It would undermine its labelling effect.  In that sense it is useful to the fundamentalist naive-left, just as the 'yellow star' was to the nazis for labelling the jews  as "exploiters".  But Mao had more imagination, he preferred the labels of "running dogs" and "traitors to the people" (or the equvalents in Chinese of course).Plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme chose. Yes, the subject has definitely 'moved'...

-- Kappert claims that I "do not give a damn about a part of Alaska".  How does he know that? It is all part of the same mantra.  He just knows....

-- Biofuels?  I will have to 'read up' a bit on that, otherwise I run the risk of descending into Kappert-like fundamentalism.

I am sorry, Traveller, but I DO worry about Kappert's students, and for good reason.  The evidence is all there on the screen, right in front of all our eyes.   

- Dallas County voters do not handle crime in their community, they put innocent people behind bars (texascivilrightsproject.org)
- Today's Middle East was designed in 1921 by the British and French. The mad Texan only continues this policy by triggering new wars.
- You seem to enjoy the billions spend on warfare, maybe there are some who don't.
- From an arrogant point of view, the word 'exploitation' does not even exist.
- a 'small part of Alaska' and you give a damn about it.
- the issue biofuel will be one of the most important themes to debate worldwide.
- don't worry about my students, they learn how to think.

@ Traveller

Pvdh introduced "four goals". I have responded to these specific goals under 6 headings (goals 3 and 4 required 2 separate paragraphs each). One would think that there was enough material there for Kappert to put his 'teeth' (keyboard) in and make a sensible contribution to clarify the "goals". But, apparently that is not the case.

It appears that he has 'moved on' to other subjects.  Such as:

-- Incarceration policies of criminals in Dallas County.  It would apear that Kappert does not believe in 'local control' of such matters, because this is almost entirely a matter of County governments in the State of Texas. Kappert thinks he knows better than the voters of Dallas County about how to handle crime in their coummunity.

-- He seems to think that Middle Eastern "terror" was "triggered by a mad Texan", which is a good example of 'putting the cart before the horse' (in both historical and sociological terms).

--  He seems to think that Germans are better informed about 'wastage' of German taxpayers money than Americans are about their tax payers money.  Do you believe that? 

-- Oh yes, the word "exploited" appeared again, but it is totally unclear what it could possibly mean in this context of "4 goals". It is probably just a slogan on 'automatic pilot'. Like the way the Chinese National Congress 'votes/approves' Politbureau resolutions in unison, or like they used to do in Berlin and Nurenburg.  Did I already mention the word "fundamentalist" in this context of slogan-parroting?

-- Some purported "Carter Doctrine" about energy security.  That one got me really baffled, for I find it hard to say anything positive about Jimmy.

-- Oh yes, he also wants to talk about "drilling in ANWAR" (translation for nonAmericans who do not read the NYT and other 'international media': a small part of Alaska).

-- The issue of "biofuel" at the upcoming G-8 summit.  
 

As you can see, Kappert has a very extensive 'agenda'.  I hope Pvdh has found the answers to his truly intelligent "Four Goals" framework!!

P.S. I wonder how Kappert's students could ever learn anything, considering the 'depths' (Tiefgang?) with which Kappert is able to treat any particular subject.  
 

Just take a look on the energy issue. The Carter Doctrine (1980) put the US military in service to assure regular supplies of imported oil. This has near-bankrupted the US and corrupted the military, yet left the US insecure in energy sources. The association between “energy security” and “national security” was established long ago (Roosevelt), but has become a 'mantra' of the mad Texan. Now he wants to drill in Alaska Wildlife Reservations and sponsors biofuel at the G8 summit. What kind of solution is that?

Naive-left mantra vs arrogant-right authority? I wonder how you describe 'real life' in, let's say, Dallas county, where legal issues are trampled under foot. When a country puts more than 2% of its population behind bars, 'real life' becomes an awkward thing. The Pax Americana imposted in the Middle East will not work, American policy intends to defend its way of life, despite of its unsustainability, and therefore the mad Texan triggered his 'War on Terror'. By the way, most Americans do not know how many billions are spend on that adventure. Certain is that we are messing up the planet, that 'law&order' will be more oppressive, that we will exploit people on to the end.

No problem. Simply do what kappert does when he reads something he either doesn't like, or doesn't understand.In this instance you simply substitute the word "armsdealer" with  the term, ALMS dealer, and politely thank him for the complment.

I 'll leave you to it.
I was just "up- or downgraded" to armsdealer.

re: kappert
 
Please, carry on with the intelligent discourse, and leave that dumb SOB to me.

@ Traveller
 

There is no point in asking questions to Kappert, since he never answers them.  He will respond to them by making new assertions that are part of the same naive-left mantra. But, I can answer your questions.

Yes, Kappert is "for real", and he is very much part of the reality of western "real life" today.  The same head-in-the-sand attitudes are very widespread today in our civilisation, particularly in media and 'education'.  It is I believe a direct (negative) consequence of the post-WW2 'Pax Americana', which is rapidly coming to an end.

 Note his refusal to address any specific points that were made under the pvdh-framework of 4 goals.  All you can expect is a truly 'fundamentalistic' assertion of his wrong (implied) interpretation of "legal", and the refusal to make empirical observations.  An excellent example of the latter is the nonsensical reference to "Lebensraum" (truly devoid of any reality in this context of the 'war on terror').  And of course his list of meaningless ideologically-inspired terms will continue. The latest example is his use of "exploitation".  These guys actually can think that the US (and others) are spending billions of dollars for the fun of "exploiting" others.   You could as well try to 'reason' with Hitler or Ahmadinejad about 'jews'. Kappert is a poster boy for contemporary western (secular) fundamentalism. These guys believe what they believe with absolute certainty, and they won't let empirical observations, nor 'questions', stand in the way.

Of course, for an arms dealer it must be shocking!

Are you for real?
Are you sure you are not pretending to be in some farce-like candid camera situation?
There seems to be no way for you to take part in real life.
What schools have brainwashed you?

It is remarkable that our trigger-happy-fraction endorses preemptive warfare as something legal, probably to defend their own way of life, e.g. Lebensraum, with all the exploitation of other countries. For them, Guantánamo, as a concentration camp, is part of 'neutralising the enemy', e.g. condemnation without legal process.
Why U.S. soldiers have to fight/die in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. is not explained by our wise guys.
The essay on civilisation/decadence is a poor positivistic attempt in the sense of the 19th century rationalists.
If governments are 'accountable', I hope American citizens will rise a criminal process against the current president. Let's hope that the legal 'branches' do not succumb in their lobbyism.

@ pvdh

Your 'four goals' presentation provides a useful framework for discussion (as opposed to Kappert's head-in-the-ground mantra).

1) Obviously we agree on goal-1.  But should we "catch" them only after their dastardly deeds, or also try to pre-empt them?  With the current state of technology, pre-emption must be part of "defense", because the ex post costs can be horrendous, and even much worse than 9-11.  

2) Obviously we agree on goal-2.  But, clearly 'Guantanamo' is part of the process of "neutralising" new (in truth 'old') attackers.

3)  Goal-3.  There is no evidence that anybody is being "falsely accused" by the US government.  You cannot expect American soldiers fighting jihadists in a variety of places (like the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, Southern Philippines, etc...) while simultaneously "offering them the 'right' of legal assistance".  That is absurd.  You can only suggest such a thing because you personally do not have to actually fight these characters. American soldiers are doing it for you.  The 'habeas corpus' provisons that have organically 'grown' in western democracy apply internally to citizens (and also to legal 'guests' or visitors).  They cannot possibly apply on foreign battlefields, nor have they ever applied during war-time conditions in Western countries themselves. 

I am pretty sure that the western media's irrationality (or kappert-like attitude) about 'Guantanamo' is going to have 2 practical results:  First, it is going to lead to fewer 'captures' and more 'kills' of terrorists.  Second, it is going to lead to fewer (or no longer) terrorists being kept at Guantanamo, and more handed over to 'local' authorities (with accompanying pressures for continued detention).  Both of these outcomes are much worse for the jihadists in question.  So keep it up, naive-left journalists and kappert-like school teachers.  Guantanamo will close eventually (politicians do not want 'bad PR'), but do not believe that you will have done anybody any favor.

4)  You are confusing "civilisation" with "decadence".  A civilised government should take its responsibility seriously of defending its own citizens first.  It should face the real world as it is (not as it would like it to be), and should not flee from its duty (i.e. difficult decisions today) behind sofistry and thus 'compromise' its people's future.  A civilised government would recognise that not everybody in the outside world plays by civilised rules, and should adjust its tactics accordingly.  Just like a self-respecting soccer team would refuse to play another team operating under different (nonsoccer) rules. 

5) There can be no 'justice' without some form of retribution, and a civilised justice system would never confuse the perpetrators of crime with the victims of a crime.  That means that the focus should be on the 'rights' of victims and of potential victims.  That does not preclude some 'rights' of criminals, and it certainly does not require a strict literal interpretation of "an eye for an eye".  But the principle of "an eye for an eye" is fundamentally a sound principle if one wants to preserve a civilisation. It is only the specific form of applying that principle that may change, but not the principle itself. A society cannot preserve justice if it refuses to exact retribution from perpetrators of crimes.    

6) Indeed, governments need to be 'accountable', that is their powers need to be circumscribed and limited.  That is a matter of democratic governance, and has nothing to do with esoteric legal questions about the status of "illegal combatants" and their treatment.  In a genuine democracy these questions are handled through the proper interactions between the 3 branches. As I explained earlier, that process between the Legislative, Executive and Legal branches is underway.   GWBush is a democratic politician, and he will voluntary relinquish his limited powers next January.  The legal matters concerning treatment of foreign "illegal combatants" will continue to be debated and 'evolve' forever, as they should in a democratic political system like the US.  They are not 'settled', and they will never be settled, because people strongly disagree about them , and realities/events will continue to assert themselves.      

There is no secret desire at all. Contrary to you I had experience with some of those bastards and my blood boiled. I would shoot them immediately if they just pointed their finger at me. They are lying, cheating gangsters and anybody connected to them is vermin. They have no human feelings and all they want is killing people and go to heaven for it, they believe this like programmed robots.
I have a lot of respect for the patience of the American troops who brought this vermin to Cuba, safely.
I know there is a slight chance there were some innocents among them, but I am sure they are already released.
Any foreigner in the vicinity of an Al Quaeda training camp in the middle of nowhere, desert or mountain, had to be connected to them. Why would Arabs or Europeans be there otherwise?
Stop being so bloody naive please and pray God you never meet one of those murderers.

Do I detect a secret desire of yours? If you don't give a damn about the inmates at Guantánamo, I imagine you would have supported a much quicker 'solution' of the 'they-have-to-be-terrorists' dilemma of the mad Texan.

I am not going to repeat marcfrans who already answered this question.
Guantanamo has been created because of the legal problems dealing with those gangsters.
Comparing Guantanamo with the nazis is pure BS(bullshit). The nazis would have shot those gangsters, their families and their neighbours on sight and no ifs and buts about it.

Let's believe the WashPost saying that there are 265 prisoners in Guantánamo. 65 will be released and send home after years in prison without any accusation. 80 will be shifted to Military/Civilian courts in the U.S. awaiting a long, long process, and 120 will receive a Sonderbehandlung, meaning that despite having no proof, they are considered 'dangerous' and kept in captivity. GWB is still 'analysing' the situation.

There are four intermingled goals here.
First goal: We should defend ourselves and society against those fanatics. No question about that. If we catch them, we have to put them away.
Second goal: Try to gather information to be able to neutralize possible new attackers.

Third goal: We should protect people and citizens from being falsely accused by our governments. To make sure this doesn’t happen democracies developed some mechanisms in case of imprisonment like a formal accusation within a reasonable time, an appearance before a judge or a jury, a possibility to appeal and the right of legal assistance.

A fourth goal is not to fall for the temptation of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. As civilized people we need a government that gives the right example and thus shows some restrains towards the use of violence.

It is undeniable that G.W. Bush focused very sharply on goals one and two. In a short time frame this is also the most effective way. But goals three and four got in the way. That’s why Guantanamo and the especially for the case invented status of “foreign fighters” were chosen. In the long run this is a bad thing to do. Governments are always given a great deal of power. So we should never let them get away with abolishing our possibilities to control them in the use of that power. That has nothing to do with the Guantanamo guys being innocent or not. It’s about the fundaments of our system.